Performance Testing of Field Crop Sprayers in the Rasina District
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UDC 631.348.45 Original research paper doi:10.5937/AASer1845027D Acta Agriculturae Serbica, Vol. XXIII, 45 (2018); 27-36 Performance testing of field crop sprayers in the Rasina District Dragoslav Đokić1, Rade Stanisavljević2, Jordan Marković1, Jasmina Milenković1, Dragan Terzić1, Tanja Vasić1, Saša Barać3 1Institute for Forage Crops, 37251 Globoder-Kruševac bb, Republic of Serbia 2Institute for Plant Protection and Environment, 11000 Beograd, Teodora Drajzera 9, Republic of Serbia 3University of Priština, Faculty of Agriculture, 38219 Lešak, Kopaonička bb, Lešak, Republic of Serbia Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract: In agricultural production, pests and diseases of agricultural crops, as well as weed plants, cause significant losses in the yield and quality of agricultural products. One of the most effective ways of fighting is the use of a wide range of chemicals called pesticides. In accordance with the EU Directives 2009/128/EC and 2006/42/EC underlying the standard EN 13790, the Plant Protection Administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment of the Republic of Serbia has established a framework for the control of sprayers and mist blowers. Maintaining sprayers for pesticide application in a good state of repair and proper working order reduces their harmful effects on human health and the environment. The nozzle is one of the most important parts of plant protection machines, responsible for the following major functions: delivery of a given amount of liquid in a unit of time, dispersion of the liquid by making droplets of different sizes and forming a stream of a particular shape. Testing of the working safety of sprayers and nozzles was carried out in accordance with the European Standard EN 13790 which specifies the methods and equipment for inspection. The flow rate of nozzles was measured by an S001 nozzle tester (AAMS-Salvarani, Belgium). The measuring equipment used for testing the pesticide application device can accurately determine any deviation and irregularity in the application. Keywords: measuring equipment, sprayers, pesticides, nozzles, plant protection. Received 5 March 2018 Accepted 5 May 2018 28 Acta Agriculturae Serbica, Vol. XXIII, 45(2018); 27-36 Introduction In agricultural production, all agricultural crops are susceptible to harmful effects of plant diseases, pests and weed plants. For the control of harmful organisms, the most effective way for preventive protection against diseases, and for controlling pests and weeds is the chemical way. Contemporary agricultural production implies increasing use of pesticides as plant protection products, as well as the use of pesticide application machines (Urošević, 2001). The application of pesticides by sprayers is the most commonly used pesticide application process for crop protection because it is a cheap, effective and fast method (Višacki et al., 2014b). The massive use of plant protection machines for the application of chemicals or pesticides has a major impact on the environment. High and careless use of pesticides can cause long-term adverse effects on soil fertility and quality. The basic task of mechanized protection to be fulfilled by tractor sprayers is to provide a uniform vertical distribution of the working fluid with precise dosing in individual zones for environmental reasons (Bugarin et al., 2008). The performance of application machines treatment depends on proper functioning, adjustment and design, which affect the accuracy of pesticide distribution, the accuracy of dosage and the size of losses (Bugarin et al., 2010; Srivastava, 2014). Inappropriate use of pesticides can cause harmful effects on operator, animals and the environment (Sedlar et al., 2008; Sedlar et al., 2014). The uniformity of spraying is affected by the method of disintegration of the working fluid. Distribution uniformity is described by the percentage coefficient of variation and is very important for the quality and efficiency of plant protection against diseases and pests as well as desiccation (Višacki et al., 2014a). In plant protection, emphasis should be placed on the use of modern machines that provide controlled application of pesticides (Nikolić et al., 2009). Testing of plant protection machines in the European Union began in the late 1990s. In Germany, testing has shown that most defects in sprayers are caused by defective nozzles (Tadić et al., 2014). In EU countries, regulations on the compulsory inspection of plant protection machines (with the 2009/128/EC and 2006/42/EC guidelines) have been established as the basis of standard EN 13790 (Banaj et al., 2014; Đokić et al., 2015; Đokić et al., 2016; Barać et al., 2017). The adopted laws comply with EU 91/414 EEC and relate to the mandatory control of sprayers and mist blowers (Koprivica et al., 2015). The most important factors for plant protection machines are nozzles, which perform major functions such as delivery of a given amount of liquid in a unit of time. Nozzles disperse the liquid by creating droplets of an appropriate size, forming a stream of an appropriate shape (Banaj et al., 2010; Bajkin et al., 2014). Effective crop protection is possible only if uniform distribution of the working fluid on the treated surface, that is, the quality of pesticide application, is ensured. Richards et al. (1997) emphasized that the preferred coefficient of variation of the flow rate of nozzles is less than 10 %, and is acceptable up to 15%. Wang et al. (1995) Acta Agriculturae Serbica, Vol. XXIII, 45(2018); 27-36 29 found that nozzles are in relatively good operation if the coefficient of variation is less than 10 % to 12 %. According to the criteria set by Višacki et al. (2013), if the coefficient of variation is less than 7 %, the working fluid distribution uniformity is exceptional. If this value is higher, ranging from 7 % to 9 %, uniformity is satisfactory. The coefficient of variation is tolerable up to 11 %; if it is higher, the uniformity of distribution is considered insufficient. The aim of this study was to test sprayers and measure the flow of working fluid in several types of sprayers in order to determine their proper functioning, flow rate accuracy and flow uniformity of nozzles. Material and methods A field sprayer trial was conducted with farmers in the Rasina District in central Serbia. During the test, a control test for the proper functioning of nozzles was carried out, involving flow measurements and flow uniformity examination. Nozzle flow was measured by an SOO1 nozzle tester (AAMS-Salvarani, Belgium). The testing of five sprayers from different manufacturers (A, B, C, D, E) was done in three repetitions. The test pressure was 3 bars; the rpm PTO for tractors was 540 min-1. Sprayer type A is manufactured by "Agromehanika", Kranj. The pump capacity of this sprayer is 60 l min-1, and the volume of the liquid reservoir is 400 l. The B-type sprayer is a 400 liter rear mounted sprayer manufactured by "Fischer", Switzerland. Sprayers types C and E are manufactured by "Morava" Požarevac, tank capacity 330 l. Sprayer type D is made by "Agromehanika" Kranj, with a pump capacity of 60 l min-1, and a 330 l liquid reservoir. The number of nozzles differed depending on the type and spray width of sprayer. It ranged from 16 nozzles (sprayers C, D, E), 19 nozzles (sprayer A), to 22 nozzles (sprayer B). The results were subjected to the analysis of the coefficient of variation. The technical specifications of the tested sprayers are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Technical specifications of the tested sprayers Type of sprayers Parameters A B C D E Volume of tank (l) 400 400 330 330 330 Max. rpm PTO (min-1) 540 540 540 540 540 Required tractor power >30 >30 >30 >30 >30 (kW) Aggregation mode Rear mounted sprayer Number of nozzles 19 22 16 16 16 Work pressure (bar) 3 3 3 3 3 Treatment angle (ᵒ) 80-110 80-110 80-110 80-110 80-110 30 Acta Agriculturae Serbica, Vol. XXIII, 45(2018); 27-36 Results and discussion The results of testing the average flow rate of sprayers are shown in Table 2. Table 2. The flow rate of crop sprayers Flow rate of crop sprayers (l min-1) Number of Type of sprayers nozzles A B C D E 1. 0.719 0.988 0.795 0.738 0.525 2. 1.118 1.003 1.055 0.742 1.349 3. 0.970 0.973 0.835 0.742 1.559 4. 1.058 0.978 1.007 0.746 1.472 5. 1.410 0.795 1.142 0.785 1.350 6. 1.304 0.887 1.022 1.108 1.575 7. 1.447 1.017 1.116 0.819 1.206 8. 1.337 0.799 1.225 0.844 1.584 9. 1.602 1.320 1.044 0.801 1.726 10. 1.451 1.243 0.824 0.812 1.573 11. 1.497 1.246 1.128 0.958 1.505 12. 1.418 1.214 0.916 0.586 1.492 13. 1.400 0.882 1.144 0.787 1.495 14. 1.747 0.946 1.142 0.760 1.586 15. 1.533 0.947 1.146 0.664 1.723 16. 1.599 0.905 1.174 0.712 0.422 17. 0.958 0.976 - - - 18. 1.379 0.862 - - - 19. 1.358 0.932 - - - 20. - 0.883 - - - 21. - 1.241 - - - 22. - 1.062 - - - Average 1.332 1.005 1.045 0.788 1.384 CV (%) 19.39 15.25 12.94 14.93 27.42 The results showed that the average flow rate of sprayers ranged from 0.788 l min-1 (sprayer D) to 1.384 l min-1 (sprayer E). The average flow rate of sprayers A, B and C was 1.332 l min-1, 1.05 l min-1 and 1.045 l min-1, respectively.